Open Sources | Rodrigues & Urlocker | September 2005

MORE ENTRIES

September 2005

September 30, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Asay: The corporatization of open source (and its effects)

Jason Matusow of Microsoft has an interesting slide in his current deck which corresponds to a conversation I had this morning with Joel West, as well as a few of my recent posts. I've included Jason's slide below (which he has presented at OSBC and a range of other places).

In Jason's presentation, he makes the very interesting (and valid) point that open source is increasingly corporatized. By this I mean I don't mean "commercialized," which has also happened. I mean that open source communities have increasingly been overcome by corporate interests. Using the Linux kernel as an example (see below), it's clear that the community is no longer a mishmash of volunteers writing code they love.

Talk to these developers, and they will sharply dispute what I just said. "Code first, corporation second!" they'll say. And, no doubt, most (if not all) of them mean it. That's not the point.

The point is that the more corporatization, the less free-wheeling freedom. This isn't a bad thing (unless you're RMS), but it does call into question the idyllic open source community in which people persist in believing.

[More at AC/OS.]

For my part, I think the corporatization is a great thing. Novell, Red Hat, IBM, HP, and others have dramatically helped to solidify the Linux kernel into an enterprise-class operating system. IBM's early involvement in Apache no doubt helped to ramp its quality and distribution.

My point is that we shouldn't be naive on where the code comes from (i.e., who is developing it). We also should seriously question the premise that open source offers a novel, effective way to coordinate individual firms. It hasn't. As Joel indicated, Eclipse offers the only credible example of a true "corporate community" project. The rest - JBoss, MySQL, SugarCRM, Alfresco, etc. - are run by individual companies that, theoretically (a la the GPL) make it possible for others to collaborate with them on equal terms, but in reality don't invite such semi-forking.

All of which means we need to rethink what open source actually gives us that closed-source development doesn't. Lots of eyeballs to find bugs? Probably not. Vendor-neutral, code Darwinism (i.e., best code wins, not corporate politics)? Not that one, either.

I think it comes down to greater customer intimacy (again, to quote John Powell of Alfresco), higher trust with customers (they can see the code, if they choose), lower barriers to distribution and adoption, and a different, cheaper way to buy software. Any one of these would justify the rapid rise of open source, in and of itself. Together, they make for a very compelling value proposition.

Posted by Matt Asay on September 30, 2005 12:40 PM

September 29, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Greetings from Hong Kong

A quick note from Hong Kong.

- It's hot here. Really hot. And humid, very very humid.
- No one has iPods-they all have Samsung Yepps and other devices
- Cell phone usage is not like in Japan-it's more like the US
- Only ex-pats seem to have Blackberries
- Did I mention it's hot?

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 29, 2005 07:14 PM

September 29, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Asay: Tomorrow is the last day to get a free Sony PSP (OSBC)

Just thought I should announce that tomorrow (Friday, September 30, 2005) is the last day to pick up a free Sony PlayStation Portable by registering for the Open Source Business Conference. Consider it OSBC's first present of the holiday season. :-)

Try getting one of these from LinuxWorld....

Posted by Matt Asay on September 29, 2005 01:00 PM

September 29, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Asay: Linux gaining at Windows expense

Just found this (of all places, on Novell's website - you'd think someone would have shared this with me...?). As the IDC analysis goes,

IDC expects Linux to continue biting at the heels of Windows market share and increase from 24 percent to 33 percent within two years forcing Microsoft to swallow even smaller profit margins just to hold on to their share.

Reasons for this?

[Find more at AC/OS.]

Linux is starting to move beyond Unix - it's slowly starting to take a bite out of Windows. Why?
- Whatever the relative cost of Linux talent (Robert Frances Group says it's cheaper than Windows system administrator talent, while Forrester says it's pricier), Linux requires fewer support resources. In Boscov's case (a SUSE Linux customer - full disclosure), they have all 200 instances of Linux in the enterprise supported by one person. If you read Microsoft's TCO case studies, its customers only state that Microsoft is cheaper because they didn't want to invest in any new training, which is a bit of a canard since Unix skills transfer automatically to Linux skills and, last time I checked, Unix predates Windows (so, in many cases, it is Unix skill, not Windows skill, that needs transferring....);
- Linux hardware is much cheaper than Unix hardware (old news - Cendant indicates it saved $100 million by moving from proprietary Unix hardware), but also significantly cheaper than Windows hardware (Higher utilization rates, more apps/server)
- "Windows installations require twice the number of administrator hours...spent patching systems and dealing with other security-related issues." (Robert Frances Group 2002) Even the Yankee Group, which has been bearish (neutral, they'd say) on Linux and open source indicates that only "18 percent [of its surveyed enterprises] report[] that [Windows Server 2003] is comparable to Linux reliability in terms of unnecessary reboots." This came right after the analyst's statement that Windows Server 2003 has come light years in terms of security and stability. Great progress, no doubt, but obviously a long way to go.
Microsoft customers have been pushing back on price, resulting in a better pricing structure/program, as both Yankee Group and SearchWin2000 have reported.
I suspect that choice really is an issue for CIOs. Some prefer Microsoft's "integrated innovation" model, which aims to remove complexity (and, necessarily, choice) from the IT purchasing equation by tightly integrating a broad suite of products. The problem with this "one ring to rule them all" approach is that whether you think Gates is Sauron or not (and I, for one, do not), the fact remains that many CIOs prefer to manage their vendors, rather than have the vendors manage them.

Anyway, I'm sure there are many more reasons for Linux's rise and Microsoft's leveling off. But it's a head-to-head battle that hasn't been won - by either side - and it's no time for complacency and back-slapping.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 29, 2005 12:55 PM

September 29, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Asay: Tech support salary benchmarks

As open source drives more and more value to services, it's important to keep tech support and related services (including training) costs in check. Below is data from the Association of Support Professionals (ASP), derived from a 2005 survey. Are you paying too much? Or, given that your entire business may increasingly rest on the intelligence and service of this group, are you paying too little?

For more information, check out the ASP's website.

Posted by Matt Asay on September 29, 2005 08:36 AM

September 28, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Asay: More on how open source actually operates

Audris Mockus (Avaya Labs), Roy Fielding (eBuilt), and James Herbsleb (Bell Laboratories) have posted interesting research on how open source development communities work, using Apache and Mozilla to frame hypotheses of successful open source projects. You can find the paper - "Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla" - here. It's worth a read, especially if you're a commercial entity (or a VC investing in such) looking to build an open source community around your company's project.

The authors of the report list a few hypotheses developed from their analysis of Apache, and then refine them in light of their Mozilla analysis (and, unless I misread, they also tested them against a few other projects). The results are interesting:

Hypothesis 1a: Open source developments will have a core of developers who control the code base, and will create approximately 80% or more of the new functionality. If this core group uses only informal, ad hoc means of coordinating their work, it will be no larger than 10-15 people.

Comment: See the chart at right. As the researchers note,
The chart "shows that the top 15 developers contributed more than 83% of the MRs [managed releases] and deltas [an MR generates one delta for each of the files it changes], 88% of added lines and 91% of deleted lines. Very little code and, presumably, correspondingly small effort is spent by non-core developers (for simplicity, in this section we refer to all the developers outside the top 15 group as non-core). The MRs done by core developers are substantially larger than those done by the non-core group." (14)

See more at AC/OS.

Hypothesis 2a: If a project is so large that more than 10-15 people are required to complete 80% of the code in the desired time frame, then other mechanisms, rather than just informal, ad hoc arrangements, will be required in order to coordinate the work. These mechanisms may include one or more of the following: explicit development processes, individual or group code ownership, and required inspections.

Hypothesis 3: In successful open source developments, a group larger by an order of magnitude than the core will repair defects, and a yet larger group (by another order of magnitude) will report problems.

As the authors report,
"[The chart at right] shows that participation of wider development community is more significant in defect repair than in the development of new functionality. The top 15 contributors produced only 66% of the fixes. The participation rate was 26 developers per 100 fixes and 4 developers per 100 code submissions, i.e., more than six times lower for fixes. These results indicate that despite broad overall participation in the project, almost all new functionality is implemented and maintained by the core group." (15)
The authors further found that "of the top 15 problem reporters only three are also core developers [on Apache]. It shows that the significant role of system tester is reserved almost exclusively to the wide community of Apache users." (18) This is interesting, because it points to the importance of developing a wide user base (which, as I indicated in my research posting yesterday, generally follows from the core team developing a significant body of code that others can use. Seems logical, but logic doesn't apparently follow the vast majority of projects on Sourceforge.net. It points to the need to free up core developers' time for writing new functionality - get a large body of beta testers, as MySQL, JBoss, and others have done.

Hypothesis 4: Open source developments that have a strong core of developers but never achieve large numbers of contributors beyond that core will be able to create new functionality but will fail because of a lack of resources devoted to finding and repairing defects.

Hypothesis 6: In successful open source developments, the developers will also be users of the software.

As the authors note,
"The reasoning behind this hypothesis was that low defect densities are achieved because developers are users of the software, hence they have considerable domain expertise. This puts them at a substantial advantage relative to many commercial developers who vary greatly in their domain expertise. This certainly appears to be true in the Mozilla case. While we did not have data on Mozilla use by Mozilla developers, it is wildly implausible to suggest that the developers were not experienced browser users, hence, "domain experts" in the sense of this hypothesis." (37-38)

The researchers make points about open source code quality, defect resolution response time, etc., but these are of secondary importance to me, so you'll have to read the full paper to see what they say.

Some parting thoughts:

As the researchers found in Mozilla's case, good documentation, tutorials, and refined development tools and processes can help grow a community. It's tough for people to contribute if they haven't a clue as to where to begin....
In larger projects (like Mozilla, unlike Apache - Apache's core code is kept very lean, with all new functionality farmed out to separate modules/projects), modularity is critical. Unfortunately, for projects that start out commercial and then try to go open source, the code base often is riddled with interdependencies (as was the case with Mozilla). Mozilla found a way around this by establishing module-by-module code ownership, with that one individual sufficiently knowledgeable about her module to ensure code conflicts don't arise within that module. These individual owners, then, must carefully coordinate with other module owners, unlike in a small core project like Apache, where the dozen core contributors are well aware of what's going on across the core, enabling them to contribute to various pieces of code within the core.
As in commercial software, there is no free lunch. If you want people to use your code, you have to spend the time and effort to build something worth downloading, using, and commenting on. It's no easier than commercial software, and requires an equivalent amount of work. The payoff, however, is a user base that feels ownership in the project, and not merely a buyer. That's valuable.

Posted by Matt Asay on September 28, 2005 11:08 AM

September 27, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Asay: How much community is there, anyway?

I'm doing an analysis of commonalities between successful open source projects (If you can point me to good research on the topic, please email me!!!), and came across an interesting academic paper (Requires purchase) related to the subject. Here are some of its findings (none of which will be surprising to those who have followed Joel West and Siobhan O'Mahony's work, but surprising if you still believe in the magical open source community, numbered in the millions, anxiously waiting to contribute code to your project):

It is interesting to compare horizontal applications (applications used to build other software, the end user is required to program and is, likely, a software professional) with vertical ones (applications used by an end user, no programming is required). Horizontal applications (categories Internet, System, Software development, Communications, Database, Security) account for 72%. The researchers interpret this data as evidence that the OS [open source] community is largely oriented to produce applications for the same community.

[No news here. The difference only comes when we add commercial open source to the mix. Once we bring in the commercial entities, the only thing bounding open source development is the success of the companies' business models.]

Open source projects [at least, as housed on FreshMeat (the source for the researchers' data set), which tends to host newer and, hence, smaller projects] tend to be small (82% - suitable to one or two developers) and young. 60% of open source projects (as measured in February 2001 - admittedly, an ancient data set) had been in development less than a year, 22% from one to two years, 15% two to three years, and around 2% more than three years.

[For the full set of data, please visit AC/OS.]

The GPL license prevails, at 77% of projects. The LGPL is second at 6%, and BSD trails in third at 5%. All other licenses account from 3% to 1%.

C is the most used programming language (41.5%), followed by C++ and Perl (~14% each), then PHP, Java, and Python (5% - 8%).

49% of projects have only one person developing the application; 15% have two to three developers; 20% have four to 10; 9% have 11 to 20; and 6% have more than 20. Clearly, this calls into question the ideal of "community" in open source. Last time I checked, even with my multiple personalities, I'm not a community.

The researchers assumed that larger projects would have more developers. Wrong. "Instead we find that there is no meaningful increase of size with developers." Apparently, "[fewer] developers produce the same amount of code...." This isn't surprising - I take it as a given that a minority of people in any company/project/etc. will produce a majority of code/product/whatever. The interesting thing to note is that an open source project can be wildly successful without a massive community contributing code to it. The key is code quality and contributor productivity.

Related to the above, 73% of projects have only one stable developer. 10% more projects have two stable developers (defined as a developer with a "prolonged collaboration with the project"). That leaves just 17% of projects that have more than two committed developers.

Added to the above, the researchers found that 55% of projects have no transient developers at all ("Transient" defined as those providing at most one patch in the development of any section of a project or up to three patches to the same part of the code base). Of the remainder, 9% have one transient developer, 8% have two, and 20% have between two and 10.

How does a project attain a larger status, such that it can sustain 10 or more developers? The researchers find that such conditions include "a defined and clear architecture and an adequately appealing function offered; both conditions require a meaningful size of code." This means that the initial developer(s) must be committed to see the project through its young, immature phase. But this isn't surprising, as the same principle holds true for religious movements, political uprisings (the United States is one example), and various other projects. Bluntly put, you need a fanatic or two (in the nicest sense of the word) at the beginning to blindly push forward against all odds. Open source software development appears to be no different.

80% of projects have less than 11 users (measured in terms of those who "subscribe" to a project - i.e., those who register and download a piece of code).

15% of projects are actively developed - the remainder (85%) wither and die on the vine or are, at best, "lethargically" developed. Over the six months measured, 90% of the projects on FreshMeat did not change.

Undoubtedly, there are problems with the data set. But regardless of how many holes one can point out in these researchers' work, it corroborates very well with other academic work on the subject. The myth of a global, expansive open source development community is just that: a myth. The reality is more like severe clumping of development around Linux, Apache, and very few other projects. (Even JBoss and MySQL, as I've written before, are overwhelmingly developed by those respective companies, and not by a crowd of outside developers. 95% and 85%, respectively, I believe.)

Does this mean open source is a sham? Not at all. It is still a great way to engage prospective customers, incorporating them into one's development. And it's a great way to replicate Google's "perpetual beta" development methodology, which allows them to innovate and deliver code faster, because it artificially sets expectations low.

It's also a reminder that companies engaging in open source should not delude themselves into thinking that some amorphous community will do their work for them. There is no community to do this. Whether one is a company or an individual developer, the onus of code production is on you. The community only comes when the project initiator has done the grueling, constant work to make the project worthwhile.

In this way, open source really isn't so different from closed source software.

Posted by Matt Asay on September 27, 2005 03:49 PM

September 27, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Conspiracy Theory: Microsoft wants to buy JBoss

Microsoft and JBoss are planning to work together to make JBoss' Java application server work with Windows and higher-level software.

Specifically, the companies expect their collaboration to achieve interoperability in several domains:
- Microsoft's Active Directory--so the companies' software has integrated sign-on and federated identity management mechanisms.
- Web services standards, which govern how applications employ services available on a group of often loosely connected servers.
- Management with Microsoft Operations Manager.
- SQL Server, Microsoft's database software, with JBoss' Hibernate and Enterprise JavaBeans software.

What does JBoss stand to gain from integrating with Microsoft? Hard to tell, but it seems like very little. I would guess that the number of Java on Windows shops is dwarfed by Java on Sun or Linux.
- I don't see a huge benefit to Active Directory integration.
- Standards are standards--you either follow them or you don't
- You can already use JBoss to connect to SQL Server.

My guess is that this is a PR move by Microsoft in an attempt to make the market believe the company accepts open source and actually wants to integrate with open source apps. But we know from Microsoft's own campaigns that the primary reason to buy their products is because you already have them, not because they are better.

JBoss would be a nice entrance point into open source for Microsoft. They have a decent installed base, a decent product, poor-to-mediocre download to sales conversion, and are running in the red. An acquisition would cost Microsoft pennies and would give them entre in the market with minimal pain by killing both the anti-open source and anti-Java vibes. It would also provide JBoss with a deep pocketed parent.

Glad I am going on vacation and leaving this to Matt to figure out.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 27, 2005 10:22 AM

September 26, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Matt Asay: Killing the desktop...softly

I'm Matt Asay, and I'm here to remind you that life will get better in two weeks when Brother Dave returns. Until that point, you're going to have to endure my endless handwringing: over whether we're being a tad too harsh with the brutish but cuddly Microsoft, over whether we're a bit too drunk on the open source Kool-Aid, and over whether or not enough people realize they get a free Sony PSP if they register before the end of September for the Open Source Business Conference. What, Dave: no product placements? This blog space stinks....

Dave (seen at right in his standard "I'll take on the world, come Hell or high water!" pose) didn't say whether I had to be reverent or not, so I'll choose "not." Starting with the desktop. I've been on a tear lately, decreeing the death of the desktop (and some sort of email/IM/AJAX salvation that supposedly comes later).

Today, however, a friend challenged me over on AC/OS, my home blog. If I really believe that the desktop is dead, why did I shell out a grundle of money for an Apple PowerBook? Why not just go with my Treo?

Good point. I guess there are two ways to answer it. First, perhaps the "death of the desktop" refers more to Microsoft Office than anything else. When I think about how I use my computer, it's primarily for two things: email/IM and web browsing. I use Word/Excel/PowerPoint (or their OpenOffice counterparts, depending on my audience and whether OO.o has all of the functionality I need for a given task) as rarely as I can - not because I have some sort of a death wish for Microsoft (that would be Dave), but because they're too slow. If I can't communicate an idea with a rich-text email, why bother?

So, "Real Matt" (aka Matt Harrison, proud SpikeSource employee), I think I used the wrong phrase. The desktop isn't dead. Just some of its anchor tenants.

As for AJAX, I think it's cool...as far as it goes. I'm not sure, however, how far that is. I've never been able to develop the proper slobber for Gmail that some have. I use it to collect my junk mail, yes (in "conversations," even!). But I have set it up as a standard POP email account in my...Entourage fat email client.

Zimbra is about to formally launch, promising a super-slick web-based collaboration suite that will redefine "desktop." I've used the demo, and it's pretty cool. But I'm not convinced that many corporations will jump the Exchange/Outlook ship to get there (those on Notes/Domino, however, long ago burned the ship, rather than use that clunky beast). As a case in point, I have a friend who built similar technology to that which Zimbra uses, except that it's even faster/slicker/cooler. Guess what? He still uses his fat client email app to check his mail....

I wouldn't mind being proved wrong on this but, again, I'm not holding my breath.

Is the desktop dead? Yes, in the way we used to think of it: as a productivity workstation. As our applications have shifted toward communication, the need for a tethered, heavy suite of applications has largely dissipated. Today we're looking for a client (fat, I suspect) to push around relatively light packets of information (email, IM, RSS feeds, blogs), and another (again, fat) to capture and render information (i.e., the web browser).

As for my Treo and the death of the desktop through mobile devices, the web experience gets progressively better thanks to companies like Volantis, and email has already migrated there for many (though not 100% for me - I still prefer to type on my Mac). I can see desktops (the hardware) and laptops giving way over time...but not completely. Not yet, anyway.

Posted by Matt Asay on September 26, 2005 07:24 PM

September 26, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Going to Asia-Matt Asay guest blogging for 2 weeks

I will be heading out to Hong Kong/China/Thailand tomorrow and my friend and fellow blogger Matt Asay will be keeping you up-to-date with the latest in open source banter and snarky comments.

If you want to get acquainted, you can visit Matt now at http://asay.blogspot.com.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 26, 2005 03:39 PM

September 26, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Windows based Treo (Verdict: Who cares?)

We must be really desperate for gadget and Microsoft news to justify the amount of coverage the new Windows based Treo is getting.

As a gadget junkie and anti-Microsoft crusader you might expect me to show some level of interest, but I simply don't care. Windows Mobile is awful. It's flaky, has an annoying, quirky UI and doesn't do anything to improve the biggest problem with the Treo; the lousy phone quality. I wouldn't expect a Linux based Treo to be any better, but at least I would feel confident that the worms and viruses that plague Windows would remain outside of my phone.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 26, 2005 03:24 PM

September 25, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Enterprise IT Observations Round II

Looking at the infrastructure of an IT shop is often both confusing and terrifying. Even the best developers and sys admins have stuff that was hacked together or coupled in such a manner that no one but them can make sense of it. I have been spending a great deal of time thinking about how to move a medium size IT infrastructure to it's next state. The unfortunate fact I am finding is that to run even a small business infrastructure you still need to build a 3-tier architecture (preferably with redundant hardware), have adequate backups and security, and deal with the same sets of IT issues that a large company does. And that doesn't even address the issues of desktops, viruses and IM. There is hope, it's just expensive.

SOA is right, but not as easy to achieve as I had hoped
Like yourself, I have bought into the idea of SOA, I even helped InfoWorld launch the SOA Forum. The only downside is that getting to an SOA requires a serious re-thinking of existing applications. I also can't figure out a way to run old architecture in parallel with the new while the bugs are being worked out. Unfortunately, SOA requires a great deal more than Sonic or Tibco would have you believe. In fact, it seems like all you really need is an application server (Tomcat or JBoss) and a good ESB (Mule), both of which exist as open source projects. Regardless, you need a lot of developer time and to make all this stuff work together. I'm starting to lean more toward an integration layer rather than a full-scale SOA.

Virtualization
Similar to the SOA note above, I love the idea of virtualizaton, but can't figure an obvious path to get there. Yes, I know all about VMware and how great it works, and how Xen will be in the Linux kernel, but the dependencies you get involved in with IT infrastructure don't always lend themselves to be redefined-more on this as we experiment.

Backup
Tape backup, and backup in general are rather nebulous to most people. We're all hoping for the best, but don't always have good processes or basic needs like offsite storage. Take any aspect you like-business continuity, flaky hardware, developer angst; any one or all of these should encourage you to figure out a smart, reliable process for backup and recovery. At a bare minimum you should be sending a set of tapes offsite weekly, and replicating daily (though I would suggest every six hours.)

Side note: daisy-chaining tape drives is annoying and somewhat difficult, so just buy a new one when you run out of space. This is one case where scaling horizontally is not worth the aggravation.

Data centers and managed services
Trying to decide on collocation vs. managed services is one of the most painful assignments I have taken on recently.

Managed services seem like a panacea, but the costs add up very quickly. As far as I can tell collocation is really only viable if you have the staff to manage the gear, apply patches etc. It also puts the financial burden of purchasing the equipment on you. Of course you can host all your needs in-house, but if you've been watching the news or live in the bay area, you know that nature has a way of kicking you when you are down.

Personally, I have been leaning toward managed services for the application I am spec'ing. (Redundant 3-tier architecture w/SAN) We don't have staff to manage the machines in collo, and if we did it would be in the bay area.

It's ugly out there
As an industry observer I thought I knew a lot about what was going on in IT. Now that I am back getting my hands dirty I am finding that the issues that we always talk about are incredibly real, but only scratch the surface. Matt has been urging me to write more about this type of stuff, we'll see what else I come up with.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 25, 2005 04:31 PM

September 23, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Microsoft re-org and Mass. OpenDocument

While the state of Mass. was finalizing the state-wide move the OpenDocument format John Dvorak posed an interesting theory that Microsoft will end up as three separate corporations with specific focuses.

Here's the way I see it playing out. The Windows part of the company will retain the name Microsoft and sell Windows XP, Vista and anything related to operating systems and OS development. This will be headed by Kevin Johnson after a stint sharing a co-presidency with Jim Allchin who will be quitting the company at the end of 2006.
The Office suite folks and all the applications will be spun off into a new corporation with a new name that will be one of those creations of a research company. I'll simply call it MS Software Corporation. This will be run by the guy I've always considered the heir apparent to Microsoft, Jeff Raikes, trained from day one to be a CEO someplace.

The third company which will be the Xbox Corporation will be a stand-alone game and hardware company selling all sorts of hardware and all the games for the Xbox. Its CEO will be the talented Robbie Bach. Since this is not yet a cash cow - and will show losses no matter how you do the books -- it will need a different status. Since it is the most dynamic and exciting of the three new corporations it may be presented to the public as an IPO with the current owners of Microsoft ending up with some sort of preferred stock. There are a lot of ways this can go.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 23, 2005 04:55 PM

September 21, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Sun is to Apple as Newton is to iPod

At Oracle OpenWorld Scott McNealy likened himself to Steve Jobs and Sun to Apple at the launch of the iPod when mentioning several new server products that Sun is releasing.

Besides the obvious fact that there is no correlation between a mass-market consumer product and enterprise servers, McNealy's reliance on Sun's "iPod moments" proves that the company's strategy is still completely unclear.

The iPod defined Apple's big foray into making computers digital entertainment centers. It redefined the company. The new Sun hardware like the SunFire X4100,is, dare I say, just a server and is not something that redefines Sun. If anything it just reinforces existing impressions. The new servers are merely piecemeal components to a variety of other quasi-related parts. I'm trying to get the SeeBeyond, open source ESB, StorageTek, and new servers to make sense, but it just doesn't.

Sun has been on a five-year stock slide, having lost about 90 percent of its share price since January 2000. It has not had a year of positive net income since its fiscal year 2001. Apple is at $52/share, has a market cap 3x Sun and $7.5b of cash on it's balance sheet. It's a great target for Sun to aspire to, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 21, 2005 07:39 PM

September 21, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Mediocre upgrade to .Mac

Apple announced that it would offer more storage (1GB) and a groups feature for .Mac accounts. But the account is $99/year while Yahoo, Google and any number of others are free. I would argue that 1GB of storage is the barrier to entry, not a differentiation point. And by charging $99 Apple sends a signal that it isn't taking the service seriously, at least not when it comes to building a larger user base. The $99 fee could easily be offset just by using AdWords. That said, I like the idea of the service, and want to use it, but I want at least 5GB of space available, especially as the average hard drive is 60GB at this point. I would also say that Apple's website has never been particularly speedy so there is a question mark there as well. I would be willing to pay $10/year for the service, but since I just bought a new Mac, I feel like it should be free for at least the first year. Of course, every Mac lover knows the feeling of being bled dry for the latest and greatest. At least I'm using a bootleg copy of MS Office (just kidding officer Ballmer, please take the cuffs off...SuperLinus, where are you? :>)

I don't know if Apple releases user numbers, but it would be interesting to see how many paying customers .Mac has and how many are truly active.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 21, 2005 07:02 PM

September 21, 2005 | Comments: (0)

The trouble with open source-it's not this stuff

Stephen Hemminger sent me this gem from the British Computer Society "The trouble with open source" and I have to think that this is either a joke or written by someone so out of touch with today's technology market that the BCS editors published it so they could drive some website traffic.

A few lowlights that Stephen pointed out:

Intellectual Property: A major flaw at the heart of the open source movement is the misconception that most individuals actually have the legal right to contribute their intellectual efforts to OSS projects

Huh? Distribution vendors, system vendors, and open source foundations all give explicit permission (or even require) that open source work fall under an existing open source IP policy.

Conceptual Integrity: The process of creating software is more akin to an engineering discipline than an artistic endeavour, and this raises another point of concern with OSS. Like any engineering design project, good software needs a designer (or software architect in the current industry jargon) with a clear design concept which must be adhered to rigorously otherwise the software becomes progressively messier as it is developed in a piecemeal manner.

Most commercial software is driven solely by schedule. Nothing ever gets worked on unless it is a bug, or a new feature for money. Any other work is a drain to the bottom line. Open Source is continually getting re-examined and cleaned up. The internals of many parts of Linux change over time to keep a clean framework and keep maintainability. Commercial software rots over time and becomes a maintenance burden "sorry we can't add that new feature since it means changing the ISAM layer, and the guy who understood that left 2 years ago for Google."

Professionalism: There are uncomfortable similarities between the OSS development process and the situation that arose in the computer games industry in the early 1980s, where legions of 'bedroom programmers' produced video console games of such poor quality that, despite selling in tens of thousands, they nearly destroyed the industry.

Maybe he missed this article? When was the last time Linus threw a chair?

Innovation: The absence of design leadership in the OSS development process and a motivation for OSS developers to create free versions of their favourite proprietary software may also explain why there would appear to be a distinct lack of imagination in OSS projects.

No innovation? Everything's a me-too? What about ActiveGrid or Univa?

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 21, 2005 09:58 AM

September 20, 2005 | Comments: (0)

GP2X: The Linux handheld of your dreams?

The GP2X is a Linux based PDA/gamer/whatever that looks like a better version of the Tapwave Zodiac.

It can play games. It can play your Movies. It can play your music. It can view photos. It can read Ebooks. It runs on just 2 AA batteries - And it can do all this in the palm of your hand or on your TV screen.
Yes that's right, this handheld can connect to the TV, console style. Watch your DivX movies on the TV. Play emulated classics on the TV. Try big screen Quake. Or just play them all on the GP2X's large 320*240 backlit screen. You get the best of both worlds.

It runs the free Linux operating system. This means a whole world of Games, Utilities and Emulators are at your disposal. Quake, Doom, SNES, Megadrive, MAME, Media players and Applications to name just a few.

It's powerful - Two 200mhz CPU's with 64meg of RAM, custom graphics hardware and decoding chips. Takes SD cards and has 64M of NAND memory. Plenty to play with. One of the most powerful and advanced handhelds today.

I haven't seen it but it looks cool. Pre-order it here.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 20, 2005 11:41 AM

September 20, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Third version of Linux Standard base released by Free Standards Group

The Free Standards Group has released the third version of the Linux Standard Base. The LSB is designed to make it easier for those producing higher-level software to support different versions of Linux. Red Hat, Suse, Asianux and Debian have committed to supporting the standard.

The LSB consists of a number of components, or modules:

The Core specification, described by a Generic specification and seven Architecture Specific supplements. The Core specification in turn is made up of three "books", however these are not released separately, only combined as lsb-core:
- the ELF specification,
- the LSB interface specification,
- the packaging specification
The C++ module (with Generic module and seven Architecture Specific supplements)
The Graphics Module
The seven supported architectures for LSB 3 are: IA32, IA64, PPC32, PPC64, S390, S390X, X86_64

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 20, 2005 11:29 AM

September 17, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Sending Windows back to Hell

Last week I became so fed up with Microsoft, Windows and the ridiculous cost of SQL server that I went out and bought a 12-inch Powerbook, something I should have done a long time ago. This leaves me using no Windows machines, not even my dual-boot Thinkpad.

Despite being an open source advocate I find myself forced into using certain Microsoft applications, which feels very hypocritical but sadly necessary at least until there is a true replacement for Excel. The Powerbook is great, nice form factor, though it runs a bit hot. But what I really want is a Thinkpad that runs OSX natively, which I think should be possible with the new Intel chips. So, I hereby begin my campaign appealing to Lenovo to make this happen. All we need is an Apple key on the keyboard-I'd even use CTRL or ALT if I had to. Anything to make the drama of Windows and Outlook go away.

Apple is far from perfect. The staff at the Apple store in San Francisco are so annoying that it almost drove me back to Windows. The machines are too expensive and certain apps have never made it over from Windows-Visio and Access for example. But, I've decided I can live with all of this to avoid the nonsense of viruses, worms and Outlook dumping all of my mail into the spam filter.

On a functional level there is nothing to be afraid of. I sync my Treo with iCal and Address Book and I can accept meeting invites from Exchange. Mac mail even does Exchange at this point (haven't tried it, but I assume that I could then schedule meetings as well). I've also been toying with ChronoSync, which does a great job of keeping multiple file sets in sync across multiple Macs or even windows.

I'm contemplating sending my Thinkpad off to Emperor Linux to see what kind of magic they can do for me in terms of having all the requisite drivers and such for Fedora. And Dell just came out with a Mandriva laptop, which is worth a look, but for the business user, the Mac is so superior to any other UI, or application base that it's the only choice. That's not to say that I won't be complaining that Apple screwed me over in 3 months when they release new Powerbooks.

BTW-Just noticed that Kevin Tolly at NetworkWorld did the same thing. Check out Closing the door on Windows.Winn Schwartau did too.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 17, 2005 09:53 PM

September 15, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Enterprise software and english football

Matt Asay is in London watching endless soccer and pontificating. He came up with an interesting analogy between enterprise software and english football.

High ticket prices, kick-off times changed for television, increasing numbers of live televised matches and less competition for the top three places in the Premiership have been blamed as attendances drop significantly for the first time in nearly 20 years.
Soccer vs. Software
High ticket prices = High license costs
Schedule changes for TV = A misplaced view of who one's primary customer should be (The fan willing to pay to attend, not the media conglomerate who wants to advertise to the casual fan who sits at home (OK, I was stretching that one);
Live televised matches = Open source software eating proprietary software's free lunch;
Less competition for the top-three slots = Consolidation of the biggest few players, leaving customers (and would-be startups) little choice

Despite being a bit of a reach (though only slightly more than my open source is the new punk rock) the message that Matt is getting to is that vendors are not delivering what customers need, let alone what they want.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 15, 2005 06:39 PM

September 13, 2005 | Comments: (0)

IT's hidden truth: everything is too expensive

After just a few days observing an enterprise IT shop I feel as if I may have discovered the universal truth of information technology: everything is too expensive. Every piece of hardware and packaged software, with the exception of some specific developer tools are not worth the expense. The only enterprise IT items worth their cost are good developers and staff.

Inspired by PC World's 20 Things They Don't Want You to Know article, I offer the following list of Five IT Things That are Bumming Me Out.

Everything is too expensive
IT pricing defies anything you learn in business school or in the free market economy. Pick a service or product and try and figure out how they arrived on the price. It's largely trial and error based on what the market will bear. Siebel was too expensive so Salesforce undercut them, now SugarCRM is undercutting Salesforce. Buying hardware was too expensive so we've turned to managed services, but suddenly paying $1100/month for a load balancer doesn't seem so cheap.

Margins are made in the margins-that is the pseudo-accessories that you actually need to run your infrastructure. Things like databases, load balancers and extended service agreements (you want the undercoating?) are slowly killing every CIO.

Good staff are very hard to find
When you find good staffers you should do all you can to keep them. Especially when they are valued developers and IT staff. There is so much information and understanding that developers have about the things they build that it's nearly impossible to replicate if they leave. I have yet to hear of a good way to screen developers and IT staff that are not referred by a trusted source. At one startup I worked for, my boss used to always sound a "bozo alarm" when we felt a candidate or new employee was questionable. His theory was "if you let one in, they're gonna open the floodgates of stupidity." (Yes, I know I already worked there so there must have been a leak.)

From No False Positives:
A bad employee does far more damage than no employee, no matter the issue.

A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and C players hire losers. Let your standards slip once and you're only two generations away from death.

Licensing costs for Microsoft products are not worth the supposed added value and ease of package
One of the big arguments that I hear about Linux and open source applications is that Microsoft makes it so much easier. I got news for you. The MS tools are not that much easier, they cost a great deal more and the value simply is not there. Take for example SQL Server Enterprise (you have to use Enterprise to cluster, and who isn't going to cluster?) It's $20k/cpu for the Active and some percentage less for the Passive. (Think I'm making this up? Here is the MS doc and the webpage that explains SQL Server licensing.) Considering the CPU intensiveness of SQL Server and most applications written in .NET or other MS language you need to have at least 2 CPUs which is a minimum of $40k for database licenses. And did I mention that the $40k doesn't include support? You still have to have IT staff for that.

SQL Server Enterprise: $20,000/CPU/year
SQL Server Support: Not included in the $20k
MySQL Network Basic: $600/year
MySQL Network Platinum Support: $4995/year

You do the math.

Managed services are great, but it's extremely nervewracking to not be in control of your stuff
Be it web hosting, VoIP, Exchange or Oracle Financials, the fact that you can outsource applications and hardware in their entirety is fantastic. But, it's a very big step to go from a server under your desk, or even a multi-box collocation to having someone else manage all your resources. The big upside is that these type of services reduce capital expenditures.

Any IT decision you make will be wrong
Windows vs. Linux, in-house vs. outsource, good vs. evil, it doesn't matter. You're going to be wrong, or at least you won't be all the way right. Just accept it and move on.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 13, 2005 08:10 PM

September 13, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Ten things your lawyers need to know about open-source

Here are 10 things CIOs should tell their lawyers to help them become more productive and supportive members of their teams. Detailed explanations of each point from Diane Peters in Computerworld.

1. Get educated on the business case for open-source.

2. Understand the basics of how open-source is built through the distributed software development model.

3. Force your way into our business discussions about how to deploy or produce open-source. Educate us on the legal issues as those discussions progress and our decisions take shape.

4. Don't propagate FUD. Question the claims made by proprietary software vendors and arrive at your own legal conclusions, in consultation with other lawyers experienced in open-source legal issues if needed.

5. Resist the temptation to create a new open-source license for software we develop; use an existing Open Source Initiative-approved license if possible.

6. Odds are we have (or will soon have) open-source software in our corporate environment. Establish and implement processes and procedures for managing this inevitability.

7. Join in the long-term effort to insist on reform of the patent system, particularly where software patents are concerned. The proliferation of software patents is the single biggest threat to proprietary and open-source software. Task your lawyer with voicing concerns in one of the several legal forums or associations where reforms are debated and lobbying efforts are mounted, such as the U.S. Patent Bar, the American Bar Association or the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

8. Find short-term means of reducing the threats posed by software patents. Develop a legal policy that allows us to support the burgeoning software patent commons.

9. Participate in the GPL reversioning process.

10. And finally, help us find ways to give back to the community from which our company derives benefit and support us in our efforts to do so.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 13, 2005 12:05 PM

September 12, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Microsoft REALLY wants to know about open source

Last week a Microsoft recruiter contacted open source luminary Eric Raymond about a job. Eric posted the full email and his reply here on his blog. Excerpts below.

I'd thank you for your offer of employment at Microsoft, except that it indicates that either you or your research team (or both) couldn't get a clue if it were pounded into you with baseball bats. What were you going to do with the rest of your afternoon, offer jobs to Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds? Or were you going to stick to something easier, like talking Pope Benedict into presiding at a Satanist orgy?
But I must thank you for dropping a good joke on my afternoon. On that hopefully not too far distant day that I piss on Microsoft's grave, I sincerely hope none of it will splash on you.

Funny thing is that the same recruiter called me about 2 months ago and I thought it was a joke.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 12, 2005 11:08 AM

September 12, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Oracle buys Siebel while eBay buys Skype

Oracle will pay $5.8 billion for Siebel (which has $1.32 billion in revenue) while eBay will pay $2.6 billion ($1.3 billion in cash and $1.3 billion in stock) for Skype (which has $60 million in revenue.) Which is the better deal?

Oracle buys Siebel
After PeopleSoft, this acquisition seemed inevitable. Siebel has been struggling, despite having the lion's share of the CRM market. For the $5.8 billion, Oracle gets its paws on 4,000 new customers from Siebel, most of whom were probably using the Oracle database which will likely skew the the real number. Siebel shareholders find a way out of the morass, and companies like MySQL and SugarCRM find themselves with larger market opportunities as the Oracle behemoth focuses on large enterprise customers and fighting SAP. IDG News has a good analysis here.

eBay buys Skype
Owning Skype makes sense for eBay. There are two major benefits: eBay owns the communications and advertising network; eBay increases adoption of Skype via the buyers and sellers who can now cheaply call one another. The only caveat is that $1.3 billion in cash is significant in relation to the $2.75 billion eBay has in cash right now. This is going to be an interesting assimilation to watch, as eBay will now own the largest auction site, online payment, and computer based telephony services. And you thought Google was powerful?

Near and Far
The difference in the two acquisitions is that Oracle's purchase is a near-future bet, with high odds of success thanks to the dependencies of the products themselves. On the other hand, eBay's purchase of Skype is much more future-focused, assuming that users will get beyond IM and move into voice communications. Oddly enough, I find myself liking both of these conglomerations.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 12, 2005 10:39 AM

September 09, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Salesforce.com takes a page from SugarCRM?

Salesforce.com is expected to announce AppExchange, an online marketplace for plug-ins/extensions etc. that enhance the salesforce.com platform. This is part of the Multiforce initiative covered back in late July.

Salesforce is clearly the leading playing in the hosted CRM market and this program makes obvious sense, but I'm surprised they didn't do it sooner.

Benioff has been hatching the Multiforce plan for years, said Ovum's Bradshaw. "The first meeting I ever had with Benioff, three years ago--that was exactly what he said," Bradshaw recalled. "He wanted Salesforce to become a platform provider, and his vision was that rather than just offering CRM, the company could support people's business process from a broader sense."

If Benioff has been talking about the concept for three years what stopped them from executing? I think the deeper question is: can you create a successful platform if it's closed to 3rd party developers? I think the answer is no, and Salesforce must have realized that users don't want to be locked into doing things the way a company decides they should. Maybe someone finally listened to the way John Roberts talks about SugarCRM, and the value that other entities bring to the CRM service offerings.

Disclosure: I reviewed Salesforce.com back in May 2004. I like the product, despite the fact that I think it's way over the top in features and price for small businesses.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 9, 2005 09:53 AM

September 09, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Japan's Access buys PalmSource

Mobile browser-maker Access Co. Ltd. announced Friday that it will acquire Palm OS developer PalmSource Inc. in an all-cash transaction for approximately $324 million. The acquisition adds operating system platform expertise and Linux development resources to Access's existing mobile device-oriented "content delivery and Internet access software," the companies said.

More at:
LinuxDevices
Engadget
Reuters

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 9, 2005 07:50 AM

September 08, 2005 | Comments: (0)

CA's patent gifts to open source

UPDATED 9/9 8am
Just for clarification, I should have made this 2 posts, the first half about CA is good patent news, the second falf about Ocean Tomo is not good patent news. Sorry for any confusion

About a year ago CA took a big interest in open source and is now following suit as a good community member by donating patents to the open source community. These patents include:
- Business intelligence and analytics that simplify visualization of multi-dimensional data techniques.
- Network management and security tools that enhance visualization of network traffic patterns and congestion, selectively capture and filter network traffic, and provide granular session control capabilities.
- Systems management and storage management tools that provide intelligent process controls.
- Application development and modeling that automates translation between programming languages and provides visual modeling and editing of data objects.

Admittedly I am not an expert in this area, despite being a patent holder myself (Earthlink owns the IP) but I mentioned the patent issues to an attorney friend, Kevin Cameron, of Glass, Lewis & Co. who told me about Ocean Tomo, a recent for-profit patent pooling effort that I haven't heard much about.

Ross Perot is the lead investor in Ocean Tomo Capital Fund (~$200m) which intends to fund or buy companies that have valuable IP in what is the first private equity fund set up specifically targeting patents.

Ocean Tomo's strategy is to be the pre-eminent private capital source for both IP-centric companies and their financial sponsors, such as private equity firms. Ocean Tomo lends against hidden IP value, something banks and other financial institutions are not equipped to do. It works with companies to create financial structures that make sense for their future, not just the present. In addition to helping them monetize difficult to identify assets, OT helps companies to grow strategically. The firm provides an IP equity plan that goes beyond patent licensing and litigation. Assets the firm finances include patents, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrightable material, from software to customer lists.

The real issue with Ocean Tomo is the potential for years of work to be purchased at fire sale prices now that investors have a possibility of making back any portion of their investment dollars. Not sure if this is scary yet, but it has enormous potential to be.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 8, 2005 10:20 AM

September 08, 2005 | Comments: (0)

I never write about politics, only absurdity

Firing potshots at Microsoft has been too easy lately so I turned to the business press only to see this headline: Barbara Bush Calls Evacuees Better Off. Full text below. Thanks to Swandog for the pointer. Nothing else to say here.

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 - As President Bush battled criticism over the response to Hurricane Katrina, his mother declared it a success for evacuees who "were underprivileged anyway," saying on Monday that many of the poor people she had seen while touring a Houston relocation site were faring better than before the storm hit.

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas," Barbara Bush said in an interview on Monday with the radio program "Marketplace." "Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality."

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway," she said, "so this is working very well for them."

Mrs. Bush toured the Astrodome complex with her husband, former President George Bush, as part of an administration campaign throughout the Gulf Coast region to counter criticism of the response to the storm. Former President Bush and former President Bill Clinton are helping raise money for the rebuilding effort.

White House officials did not respond on Tuesday to calls for comment on Mrs. Bush's remarks.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 8, 2005 10:13 AM

September 06, 2005 | Comments: (0)

The psychology behind Microsoft's market behavior

Following up my post on Microsoft's Benny Hill-like executive comments I took a bit of heat from a number of people who said that I was simply being snarky. Fact is, I think that Microsoft has had a well-run business for a long time. They consistently hit wall street numbers, have an enormous customer base and in fact succeeded in the ultimate marketing goal: creating a monopoly. But, neither market share or growth are sustainable if they continue to reject user need and focus on their own goals. Microsoft is going down a strange path, eschewing innovation for lock-in and spinning literally every piece of news that comes out. These are not signs of a company rising to competition, but more like a schoolyard bully trying to stand his ground. There is some deep aberrant psychology in the open source community, but there is so much strange stuff swirling around Microsoft it's worth at least a cursory look.

I won't go crazy with the psycho-babble, but just for context, way back in 1974 psychologist George Field wrote about organizational libido in the Psychoanalytic Review and the fact that new organizations have a strong male ethos. However, a group that becomes successful while young and aggressive often becomes weak and effeminate as it matures, focused on process and architecture rather than staying aggressive. In my mind Microsoft seems to fit this description pretty well. Further, Microsoft also fits into the the concept of "group as mother" as Leroy Wells discusses in Advances in Experimental Social Processes Volume 2 (Wiley, 1980.)

- Group tasks sometimes result in infantile regressed quality
- Fear of being fused with group vs. being isolated/seperated
- Ambivalence returns adults to infant roots
- Infants have love/hate feelings about mother (like Stewie on Family Guy)
- Group represents primal mother to the individual
- Infant experiences self as omnipotent--So far as it excites it's a good object which he loves, as far as it frustrates or hurts him it's a bad object
- Parts of self are projected onto leader
- Groups, like mothers, create strong conflicting ambivalent feelings of love and hate

Any of these seem applicable? I think you could draw a correlation to each item and Microsoft's market dynamics (don't make me explain each point, just think about it). On the other hand, take the idea of the "group as a whole," where the group is more (and less) than the sum total of the individual members and the dynamics.

- The group has a life of its own distinct from but related to the dynamics of the members
- Interactions form a gestalt (something such as a structure or experience which, when considered as a whole, has qualities that are more than the total of all its parts)
- Unconscious tacit agreements exist within the membership

Group as a whole sounds like open source, doesn't it? Not that open source companies, or the community at large doesn't have problems, but which one do you want to be a part of, the nagging matron or the self-governing organization that drives towards a greater goal? Think I'm making this up? Take a look at the quotes below from the Kai-Fu Lee trial where Bill Gates plays momma bear to Lee.

Former Microsoft Corp. executive Kai-Fu Lee accused the software titan of incompetence in its plans to gain a business footing in China, and testified Tuesday that an expletive-filled tirade from Chairman Bill Gates was a low point before he defected to rival Google Inc.

The former executive testified that one of the lowest moments of his career with Microsoft was a conversation in which Gates yelled at him and said that the company had been "f----d" by the Chinese people and its government. Lee did not clarify the context of Gates' comments.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 6, 2005 06:44 PM

September 04, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Microsoft Leadership going down the tubes

Are those infantile cries I keep hearing coming from Microsoft again? First it was Martin Taylor, gm of the platform group, now it's Alan Yates, gm of information worker business strategy (does that even fit on a business card?) crying about the state of Massachusetts decision to use Open Document and PDF formats for state use. The audacity of a state government to defy Microsoft! How dare anyone be allowed to have a choice in using standards vs. Microsoft formats! (BTW-I like Excel, and Word to an extent, so there.)

I'm not sure that Mass. is making the right decision--most users outside of their office need the docs to be in formats they can read, but it's about choice. Take a look at Matt's thoughts on the issue.

Yates: "As we look to the future, and all of these data types become increasingly intertwined, locked-in formats like OpenDocument are not well suited to address these varying data types - as the proposed policy itself acknowledges. It's this need for choice and flexibility that led Microsoft to design Office in a way that supports any XML schemas that a customer chooses, a capability lacking in less functional formats."

ZZZZzzzzzzzz. Oh sorry, Yates bored me to sleep. Shouldn't the obvious PR line from Yates be something like "We're working together to meet the needs of Massachusetts." Instead, Yates lambasts Massachusetts and starts pushing product features "Open Document does not address pictures, audio, video, charts, maps, voice, voice-over-IP, and other kinds of data our customers are increasingly putting in documents and archiving" wouldn't it make sense to add functionality to support the government needs? Microsoft could put capabilities within their XML Office suite right now to open, save and manipulate OpenDocument formats.

Kriss emphasized, however, that the state is not moving to open standards for economic reasons but to protect the right of the public to open and free access to public documents for the foreseeable future. "What we've backed away from at this point is the use of a proprietary standard and we want standards that are published and free of legal encumbrances, and we don't want two standards," Kriss said. "We want OpenDocument, not Microsoft's XML standards. If Microsoft can make Office save and manipulate the OpenDocument XML standard, it would make their product more competitive for our use. "

Let's also note that Microsoft seems to be falling further into a position of Benny Hill-esque absurdity now that Bill Gates is less in control. I think Ballmer's tirade against Google is funny and at least shows he's competitive (if not a little bit psychotic) unlike Taylor and Yates who sound like amateurs (that's right, I'm a big man talking smack on this little blog). It's surprising that Microsoft's notoriously closed PR department would even let these guys talk. But don't stop, I always need something to write about.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 4, 2005 10:27 AM

September 03, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Linux for PC Users and Gmail Notifier for Mac

PC Mag has a great overview of Linux for Windows users which highlights both the upsides and the challenges.

Google has released a beta of Gmail Notifier for the Mac. The gmail icon sits unobtrusively in the menu bar allowing me to get my spam even quicker.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 3, 2005 10:03 AM

September 02, 2005 | Comments: (0)

Global Development Models

In discussing outsourcing and open source development models with a VC friend the other day, I mentioned that I knew of several groups that developed globally, including the Apache Foundation, MySQL and db4objects.

db4objects has on-staff developers in Germany, Brazil and Siberia. Christof Wittig, db4objects CEO, discusses how the company utilizes global development efforts.

How does your development model work?
Product development is firmly embedded in the community. Literally 1,000s of developers use db4o with a few that are actively writing the core, who we fund. These employees are recruited from within the community. They can be as dislocated as Brazil, Siberia or Germany, but still work very efficiently together.

We use extreme programming blended with open source collaboration techniques and tools. Central communication is through our newsgroups, but we also set up Skype sessions for voice interaction and a Skype/TightVNC combination to run virtual pair programming sessions. Annually we meet face-to-face in destinations as exciting as San Francisco, the Bavarian Alps, or Salvador de Bahia in Brazil to discuss the product roadmap, design proposals, and build team spirit.

What do you think are the benefits and challenges of this model?
The benefits lie in the ability to recruit the right person for the right job - no matter where he or she is located. This, of course, is a win-win situation because we can offer interesting employment to developers in remote areas that is generally only available to people in hubs like Silicon Valley (or those that were prepared to relocate there.)

Having the right person for the right job really matters in software development - one of the few, if not the only industry, where an individual worker can have a negative productivity! As a result of our model we can see productivity up 10x over old-style, collocated software fabs. Having been there with my former venture, I would not want to go back any more.

We also find that we have to pay less in cash compensation. The model offers more non-monetary incentives such as the ability to take care of the family while working, to live and work in a self-determined environment, or to work less than fulltime to spend additional time e.g. on other open source projects or other extracurricular activities. Since our employees mostly live in less expensive areas and don't need to commute to work, they see savings that often more than make up for the reduced cash compensation while they get the additional incentives on top of that.

These benefits -- increased productivity and lower cost of SW development -- are major elements of our low cost software business model which enables us to provide better software at lower prices.

The challenges are to find (for us) or provide (for the employee) the right skill set to work effectively in this environment. We continuously refine the way to effectively screen candidates.

Is this model unique to open source or just made easier by the mind set of developers who rely on open source and open communications in programming (and life?)
Open source is the movement that has fostered values that are opposite to what many closed-source corporations do. Therefore, I believe, that people with conventional careers will find it harder to excel in this environment than those that grew up with it.

The same applies for organizations. Old-style software fabs will find it very difficult if not impossible to change so radically to become anything like us. Look how the large hub-and-spoke air carriers failed to copy Southwest. Did you know that Southwest hires most of its employees from outside the industry to be free from costly legacy practices? As a result, the Uniteds of this world are in bankruptcy while Southwest enjoys high profits and growth rates. We will do the same to closed source software giants with their overpriced and frills loaded products.

What do you look for in a developer?
Relevant accomplishments obviously will differ for each area of interest. Someone who has built an open source object-relational mapper "for fun" is certainly of great interest to us (laughs). We will look at the quality of the source code and take into account the person has displayed a lot of passion for the subject of our work.

Team orientation is essential. Lonely stars will be rejected by the team and the community. There are great developers out there, but nothing matches the power of a core team effectively interacting with a large, diverse community. As a prerequisite, good communication skills, especially via newsgroups and e-mail are required.

Being dislocated and working from one's basement also requires a discipline as to keep track of priorities and manage and balance life. We have no line managers but only very broad directives from senior management. Evaluation happens by results not attendance and other behavioural observations.

We recently rejected a very qualified candidate with an impressive vita. His job description included extensive posting in newsgroups. However, he didn't have a newsgroup track record at all and the few postings we saw were poor and not very supportive in its nature. Why should we expect he would suddenly change when hired by us?

Any developer should remember that any code contribution or any posting in a newsgroup is stored by Sourceforge and Google Groups forever.

Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 2, 2005 11:01 AM

Microsoft Mini Spotlight

Get Started
Port 25 Blogs
OSS News
Join a Project

{Open Source} Heroes Happen Here

Start today and order your own Hero Hack Pack � which includes Getting Started with Open Source, Windows Server 2008 and Visual Studio 2008 Trial. Each pack is a chance to win a free pass to OSCON 2008.